ANANTANARAYANAN, J. :- In this appeal by the first defendant, the primary question involved is one of limitation. In order to appreciate the background against which that issue arises, the following facts are essential.

2. The second defendant executed a simple mortgage with regard to certain properties in favour of the first defendant (appellant) for a sum of Rs. 4500 on 26-3-1930. The suit of the first defendant (O. S. No. 213 of 1945) was instituted to enforce that mortgage not merely against the mortgagor, but also two others who claimed to be in possession of the suit properties under an independent title. The preliminary mortgage decree exonerated those two persons. The matter came up to this Court in appeal in A. S. No. 125 of 1947 before Satyanarayana Rao and Chandra Reddi, JJ. and the following passage from that judgment of the Bench is of some interest upon the history of the title :

It appears that Ramaswamis wife, after death of Ramaswami, instituted a suit in which it was decided that the release deed executed by her did not convey any interest to the first defendant and that was valid only to convey the rights of management of the estate of Ramaswami to the fir